If Microsoft Wins Its 'Stupid Patent Of The Month' Lawsuit, Expect A Plague Of Trolls To Move Into Design Patents
from the agonies-of-atomization dept
The recent Techdirt article about Microsoft's design patent on a slider understandably focused on the absurdity of companies being forced to hand over all of the profits that derive from a product if it is found to have infringed on someone else's design patent even in just a tiny portion of that product. But there's another angle worth mentioning here that picks up on something Techdirt has written about several times before: the rise and threat of patent thickets. Back in 2012, it was estimated that 250,000 active patents impacted smartphones. That makes it impossible to build devices without licensing large numbers of patents, and even then, it's likely that claims of infringement will still be brought.
The underlying problem is that patents were originally devised for a complete, self-standing process or invention. For example, some of the earliest patents were those granted in fifteenth-century Venice for glass making. Over the centuries, invention has become atomized, with smaller and smaller elements being granted patents. These are not, in general, useful on their own, but must be combined with other components to make something useful.
That process of atomization has reached its peak in the world of software, which is typically made up of thousands of smaller software parts. That's in part why computing has emerged as the field most plagued by patent litigation: if you own a patent on a key element that is required for the other software parts in a product to work properly, you are in a very strong position to force manufacturers to pay you for a license.
The situation described in the Techdirt article about Microsoft's slider shows that there is a risk that the consequences of atomization in the field of design patents, where even tiny, obvious elements are awarded a patent, could be worse than for "ordinary" utility patents. That's because of the high level of damages based on the total profits derived from an infringing product, irrespective of the importance of the design element in question. Let's hope the Supreme Court decides to take this case, and comes out with a sensible ruling that heads off the danger of disproportionate damages. If it doesn't, we can probably expect trolls to move into the design patent world in a big way -- and for real innovation to face even more hurdles than it does at present.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: damages, design patents, patent trolling, patents
Companies: microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I’ve Always Wondered ...
After all, if the patented idea is such a key part of the product, then it is a key part for better or for worse.
Or are patent owners like God—they claim credit for the good stuff, but disclaim any liability for the bad stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I’ve Always Wondered ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's the rub.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hope you have a similar post for that time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazing how the some people never learn from the mistakes of the past as they are too focused on amassing pointless wealth in the now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its not atomized thats the problem, its abstraction
Combining stuff "atoms" is often inventive and should be protected IMHO. Atoms would in real world terms combine in chemistry...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Website Design Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Website Design Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the ribbon interface something to be proud of?
If one was savvy enough to avoid the dreadful early Windows releases of WordPerfect, it's always been superior to Word. Well under the radar, it's alive & thriving with Version 17–-albeit with a relatively "microscopic" user base. Perhaps the bonehead lawsuit can bring some well deserved attention to it.
Evidently WP has been a sore spot for MS lo these many years. Just goes to show how "even a little dog can piss on a big building."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@8 except you cant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]